Alcohol a Growing Problem in the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, Report Says

Liquor-related arrests of department employees have nearly tripled since 2004, watchdog agency finds. Baca and unions are at odds on new policy barring drunk deputies from carrying guns.

Los Angeles, CA. Apr. 16 – There has been a dramatic upswing in the number of Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies arrested for alcohol-related offenses in recent years, suggesting a growing drinking problem within the department, a county watchdog agency reported Wednesday.

Last year, 70 sworn and civilian employees of the Sheriff’s Department were arrested. The majority of those arrests involved employees driving off-duty while under the influence of alcohol, according to an annual report produced by the county Office of Independent Review. In many cases, drunk deputies were carrying firearms at the time of their arrests…

Sheriff Lee Baca sought to implement one of the nation’s toughest policies barring deputies from carrying firearms while under the influence of alcohol. The unions have opposed the policy, saying that it would endanger deputies. The matter is now with the county’s employee relations commission.

Baca acknowledged Wednesday that the number of alcohol-related arrests indicated that some deputies have a drinking problem.

"This is a personal failure that has public consequences," Baca said. "I don’t know how they can look anyone from Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the face."

Barring drunk cops from carrying guns would endanger their safety? And if 70 deputies were arrested, I wonder how many more were given "professional courtesy" from fellow cops?

This entry was posted
on Thursday, April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 am and is filed under Duiblog.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

standup

How many more were given “professional courtesy” from fellow cops? That’s easy, just mutiply 70 times “87″. Right Don ?

No kidding, brings to mind; what about intoxicated judges, prosecutors, and court clerks??

I just went to the CA DMV and got my Commercial Class A with endorsements reinstated.

I asked for my abstract DMV report. I was convicted of a 23104A Dry reckless, no alcohol was involved. It was well documented in the Court room by a judge and court clerk, the clerk is then by law to report this court status to the DMV, right?

So last June, 19 of 2008 almost 60 days after my conviction in court for a reckless driving non alcohol related offense, I get a phone call from a family friend who works in Law enforcement telling me that my abstract say I was convicted of a 23152 A DUI.

Was the court clerk drunk when he typed in “23104 A dry reckless” ? did the court clerk stagger and swerve on his keypad and accidentally type 23104 A? I mean there is a big difference of 04, and 52, dry reckless, and DUI. The actual letters and numerals are completely different, 0 does not =a 5, and 4 does not = a 2, right?

The words “Dry Reckless” and “Driving under the Influence” do not match up.

Dry does not = driving, and Reckless does not = under the Influence.

So last June 19 of 08 I had to call my attorney and notify them that the Court Clerk reported my Dry Reckless and a DUI driving under the influence.

My attorney filed a “Minute Order” which included a “Nunc Pro Tunc” meaning “now for then’

The court updated my abstract with the DMV, that my conviction 0n 4-23-08 was a “Dry Reckless” and not an “Alleged DUI”

All was well, right? Well no, on April 16 2009, yesterday I asked for my abstract and guess what was “Fraudulently Reported”

I was still convicted of an” alleged make believe DUI 23152 A”, and on top of that a
“Reckless Driving” for which I was convicted for, now I have two convictions, one is real and the DUI is fake.

Again, today I call my lawyer for another “minute order” and “Nunc Pro Tunc” to “remove” this imaginary DUI from my record, it’s been sitting there for a year.

Is there anyone here that might have an idea as to why after two attempts the court, court clerk, and DMV is unable to provide the correct information that: a Conviction of reckless driving on 4 23-2009 23104 A is true and correct, that’s not a conviction of DUI 23152 A, which is false and fraudulent information on my abstract??????.

Why I’ve had to file two “Nunc Pro Tunc Minute Orders” ? and they still can’t get it right.